Gellar. This shouldn't even be a question. SMG is Buffy. The movie is barley there- it's very hush and understated in a bad way. The studio were morons for f!cking with Whedon.
That said- Gellar will still always be better. Kristy Swanson has a very manly walk, and masculine mannerisms, whereas Gellar is adorable, beautiful, and sexy + she OWNED Buffy and was phenomenal on the series.
Gellar forever; as pretty as Kristy was, SMG is prettier, and a far more talented actress.
When she started in the series, it became clear that the role was made for her, even though Kristy may have played it first.
Team Swanson.
share[deleted]
Geller. Her acting range is far greater than Kristy's.
She can act the ditz, she did a good job playing 15 year old Buffy in the flashback and the end of Season 2, considering she was around 21 at the time.
I like that Joss did not make Buffy in the series this Valley girl who was
an insult to females.
People keep comparing there body shapes, yes Kristy looks more athletic, but that is half the point, that this small, skinny girl could have this super-power makes it more amazing. Jenny Calendar said in one episode (season 1 or 2)
'the part where Buffy's the slayer, that's what I don't get, she's so little', she said something like this and it makes the point that you wouldn't expect it.
I'm from the UK so can't comment much on Geller being too New York and Kristy being a California girl. I can tell a southern accent, a California one and New York, though not as much as an American person can. Sometimes when Sarah was doing a dramatic Scene you could hear the harshness of her New York accent coming through.
Comedy-wise, Swanson but in terms of conveying a credible dramatic arc to the character, Gellar.
Looks and personality-wise I've always had a thing for Swanson. She embodies that All-American California-Girl type, and she's much curvier and thus sexier than Gellar, but Gellar to me is great as a post-trauma 'tough girl'.
In many ways they're like 'before and after' versions of the character, in this case 'before and after' the high school massacre. Swanson represents the popular, pampered, healthy, happy and blissfully ignorant high school WASP princess and Gellar represents the hardened, thoughtful, displaced and clued-up semi-outcast complete with a single mother, tarnished high school history and non-classically beautiful (i.e. slightly 'ethnic') good-looks. The two Buffys compliment one another brilliantly from a sociological perspective and it's a shame that once the series took off Joss Whedon never embraced that fascinating dichotomy.
It's not really fair to compare the two as the show and movie versions of Buffy were written very differently. Sarah got a lot more to work with than Kristy. I think they both did well.
shareI agree. The movie that we got (not the one that Joss wanted, but the ones that the Kuzuis actually put out) and the show are very different beasts and required different things. Kristy Swanson was a good choice for the campy silliness that we got from the movie. The show required something different from its lead, someone with more range, depth and gravitas, and Sarah was a good fit for it. They're different and that's ok. There is no one right way to interpret a character.
share[deleted]
I'm currently watching the movie for the proper first time. Swanson totally has that warrior princess thing going on which goes along with the theme of a slayer. Gellar is smaller and looks more timid which I suppose was deliberate as a gag. It's not really fair to compare because Gellar had 7 years to flesh out the character when Swanson only had the movie.
Indeed I am the real Lindsay Lohan; hence the username.🔪
Which one is the better actress? Swanson. Which one has the sexy, toned, yet still enticingly curvy body? Swanson.
I'll have to pick ... Swanson.
A Superman without trunks isn't worth watching or reading about.